Only Persons Directly Affected By Unauthorized Construction Are Entitled To File Petition Against It: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court reiterated that only those persons, who are directly affected by unauthorized construction and who are the immediate neighbours living in the vicinity of the property in question, are entitled to file a petition against any unauthorized construction.

A Writ Petition was filed before the High Court to stop and demolish the illegal and unauthorized construction on the ground that the Petitioner was the owner of the property.

The Bench of Justice Mini Pushkarna observed, “This Court notes that various orders have already been passed by this Court that it is only those persons, who are directly affected by unauthorized construction and who are the immediate neighbours living in the vicinity of the property in question, are entitled to file a petition against any unauthorized construction.”

Advocate Arun Kumar Verma represented the Petitioner, while Advocate Raj Kumar Yadav, Siddhant Nath and Akhil Mittal represented the Respondents.

Case Brief

A Writ Petition was filed seeking directions to the MCD and other Respondents, to stop and demolish the illegal and unauthorized construction being carried out by Private- Respondents.

The Petitioner contended to be the owner of the property in question, while MCD contended that a similar plea was taken in another suit with regard to ownership of the property. It was also submitted by MCD that action with respect to the unauthorized construction against the property in question has already been taken.

Court’s Observation

At the outset, the High Court noted that the Writ Petition was filed on the premise that the Petitioner was the owner of the property in question and did not file any suit for possession of the property. The Court opined that such conduct raises doubt as regards the genuineness and bonafide case put forth by the Petitioner.

The Court observed, “Clearly, the present writ petition has been filed with nefarious designs and with an ulterior motive, wherein the petitioner has filed the present petition on the basis that the property in question belongs to him. It is to be noted that despite raising such plea, the petitioner has only filed the present writ petition against unauthorized construction and no steps have been taken by the petitioner to seek possession of the property in question, which allegedly is owned by the petitioner.”

The High Court emphasised that various orders have been passed by the Delhi High Court regarding that it was only those persons, who were directly affected by unauthorized construction and who were the immediate neighbours living in the vicinity of the property in question, are entitled to file a petition against any unauthorized construction.

The Court criticized the practice wherein Petitions were filed against the unauthorized construction on the ground that the premises where such unauthorized construction was being raised, was owned by such persons.

“Such tactics and stratagem cannot be allowed to be adopted by such unscrupulous persons, who, in order to obtain unlawful gains for themselves, try to use the solemn process of this Court. This is certainly not acceptable. This Court cannot allow the process of the Court to be misused and abused in this manner”, the Court said.

The High Court observed that the Writ Petition was an attempt by the present petitioner to arm twist the builder of the property in question for undesirable and dishonest considerations and dismissed the Petition with cost of Rs. 50,000/-.

Accordingly, the Writ Petition was disposed of.

Cause Title: Shri Balbir Singh V. Municipal Corporation of Delhi (Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:8860)

Appearance:

Petitioner: Advocate Arun Kumar Verma

Respondents: Advocates Raj Kumar Yadav, Tripti Sinha, Siddhant Nath, Bhavishya Makhija, Amaan, Akhil Mittal, Riddhi Jain

Click here to read/download Judgment